Microsoft's courtship of Red Hat for a patent and indemnification pact of the sort it has managed to hammer out with Novell, Xandros and Linspire is not going well.
Tom Robertson, Microsoft's general manager of corporate interoperability and standards said Friday that the company would "love" such a deal, reports Computerworld.
A Red Hat spokesperson said the same day that a deal is of no interest.
And as IT Business Edge blogger Lora Bentley pointed out today, Ubuntu distributor Canonical is making it publicly clear that it has no interest in a deal with Microsoft, either, mostly because of the negative impact on open source in general that would result.
And last but not least, coverage this week of a recent survey of open source developers' opinions on software licenses is coming down hard on Microsoft, with good reason.
The survey's consensus: The developers prefer flexibility in licenses, rather than having any organization impressing its views on their work or rights, says this Redmond Developer News article.
Sounds like a rejection of GPL v3 and its planned provisions to prevent Novell-Microsoft-type patent deals, right?
Except that Microsoft sponsored the Harvard Business School study. Who knows how much Microsoft spent for the responses of 34 (yes, a whole 34) developers and this latest slap at the Free Software Foundation and the GPL v3, but even if it was free, that was too much for yet another round lost in this fight.
In reading through the survey summary, though, one topic that bears further investigation (perhaps not with a Microsoft-funded project) is the conclusion that the FSF's actions are designed to protect open source software users' rights, to the detriment of the developers rights. Can one organization effectively serve both masters? Maybe not, but do deals like the Microsoft-Novell agreement do any better?